Crude oil tops $140, predicted higher this summer
The far-right's patriotism problem...Larisa Alexandrovna
Analysis here. She says authoritarian ideologues distort to squash dissenting views.
A hungry man is not a free man
These days we’re all about exporting democracy and freedom to foreign counties. And using war to do it. The global America-for-export dream is us, walking into mud-flat third world nations, nailing victory into place and unfurling the banners of abundance.
Meanwhile, the US Department of Agriculture reveals that at home, 4% of American households are going hungry for lack of money (that’s 4.4 million households), and another 12% are food-insecure: they eat if they don't pay rent or other bills.
American poverty is a multifaceted disaster. Why do we export liberty and abundance to other lands when America is not taking care of its own?
We have a conservative leadership. Many conservatives simply don’t want to take care of our poor. More welfare, according to Social Darwinists, just encourages the poor and then they won’t work. These conservatives are proud of their ruthlessness.
Those conservatives who do believe in helping also believe that the only help should be in the form of charity.
Many conservatives believe that charity is the answer to poverty.
(This is obviously wrong, because if charity really worked, there would be no more homeless and hungry.)
What’s the catch?
The catch is the conservative mindset that charity should only be given to people who are 'deserving.' (And conservatives insist on making that judgment themselves.)
So we have 18% of American children living in poverty, and the numbers are growing. We'd rather give charity to foreigners. Conservatives are giving charity selectively because of their prejudice against the poor. -- These kids’ parents are welfare cases, so are not 'deserving.'
But a nation with many hungry millions cannot be a strong nation. A hungry person is not a free person (originally Adlai Stevenson’s conclusion) because hunger is coercive. A well-fed person can explore his options, read, and act as an informed member of a democracy. But a hungry person is a problem: he’s distracted, fearful, resentful, and he must look for food.
Unequally distributed hunger creates a division in a society.
Next: in a dangerous dog-eat-dog world, which conservatives insist, there’s Darwinian competition between nations. Conservatives keep saying: to survive, we have to be top dog. But how can we be top dog, with these internal divisions? Outsiders, looking at us, certainly see us weakened by them.
I’m not saying conservatives are rational.
Taking care of our own would heal us, naturally. But fathoms deep in the conservative mind is some dark, lurching logic that weakens us. Something even stronger than the fear of outside threats prevents them helping their fellow Americans.
An absurd calculus. It means that while America is the biggest exporter of food, we have hunger. We have poverty and blight. From the outside it cannot look like America is the land of the free.
Related article here.
Meanwhile, the US Department of Agriculture reveals that at home, 4% of American households are going hungry for lack of money (that’s 4.4 million households), and another 12% are food-insecure: they eat if they don't pay rent or other bills.
American poverty is a multifaceted disaster. Why do we export liberty and abundance to other lands when America is not taking care of its own?
We have a conservative leadership. Many conservatives simply don’t want to take care of our poor. More welfare, according to Social Darwinists, just encourages the poor and then they won’t work. These conservatives are proud of their ruthlessness.
Those conservatives who do believe in helping also believe that the only help should be in the form of charity.
Many conservatives believe that charity is the answer to poverty.
(This is obviously wrong, because if charity really worked, there would be no more homeless and hungry.)
What’s the catch?
The catch is the conservative mindset that charity should only be given to people who are 'deserving.' (And conservatives insist on making that judgment themselves.)
So we have 18% of American children living in poverty, and the numbers are growing. We'd rather give charity to foreigners. Conservatives are giving charity selectively because of their prejudice against the poor. -- These kids’ parents are welfare cases, so are not 'deserving.'
But a nation with many hungry millions cannot be a strong nation. A hungry person is not a free person (originally Adlai Stevenson’s conclusion) because hunger is coercive. A well-fed person can explore his options, read, and act as an informed member of a democracy. But a hungry person is a problem: he’s distracted, fearful, resentful, and he must look for food.
Unequally distributed hunger creates a division in a society.
Next: in a dangerous dog-eat-dog world, which conservatives insist, there’s Darwinian competition between nations. Conservatives keep saying: to survive, we have to be top dog. But how can we be top dog, with these internal divisions? Outsiders, looking at us, certainly see us weakened by them.
I’m not saying conservatives are rational.
Taking care of our own would heal us, naturally. But fathoms deep in the conservative mind is some dark, lurching logic that weakens us. Something even stronger than the fear of outside threats prevents them helping their fellow Americans.
An absurd calculus. It means that while America is the biggest exporter of food, we have hunger. We have poverty and blight. From the outside it cannot look like America is the land of the free.
Related article here.
Survey shows corporations prefer dictatorships
Businesses say they spread freedom and democracy. Not by this survey. More...
1% now owns 40%
Imagine if you were on an airplane where 1% of the passengers had 40% of the seats? That's approximately the wealth pattern in America. More...
A strong society means you can trust your neighbor
Put together this little game and check out the real motives of person sitting next to you. It's called the Nuts Game. More...
Chomsky on the left ideology vacuum
At the end of this rambling response (link), Chomsky delivers a point: left intellecuals don't make ideology any more. So there's a gap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
